batch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions sequential execution and the confirm requirement for destructive actions. However, it does not describe error handling behavior, partial failure semantics, or the default onError behavior, which is only covered in the schema parameter description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with two sentences that convey purpose, usage, and a key constraint. The example of result references is helpful and does not bloat the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for basic use but lacks an explanation of the output format or return value structure. Since no output schema is provided, agents may be unsure what the response contains (e.g., array of results, status codes). This gap reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the $N.field reference syntax with an example and clarifying that confirm is needed for delete operations. Parameter coverage is strong, though the onError and detail parameters are not elaborated in the description itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool executes multiple operations in a single call, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools that handle single operations, but the batching concept is inherently clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides how-to details (result references, max 16 operations, confirm for destructive ops) but does not explicitly state when to prefer batch over individual calls or explain trade-offs. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.